|
Quote:
We all know the media will do anything to have the hot story, but what about all of these idiots that are selling Caylee out? A BABY! How do people sleep at night? I thought parents were on the jury, how can they justify this? Would it be ok if it was their child? This whole thing just makes me sick to my stomach! And her wanting more kids-that could not be wrong in more ways. A replacement now since she's played the victim role? Another reason for the media to follow her & pay her? I thought she was finally going to grieve? A way to get her family to forgive her? As for a man to help her get it done, I'm sure there are plenty. Money talks, and having an easy girl doesn't hurt.:mad::mad::mad: God Bless Caylee And I honestly thank Him for relieving her of her probable suffering.:(God Bless any future children the monster has, I hope it never happens. |
"This jury ignored the scientific evidence," said New York lawyer Susan Moss. "Apparently, they found the only 12 people who still think the world is flat." But Andrea Lyon, who once represented Anthony, said the evidence wasn't there. "That prosecution overreached," Lyon said on "AC360." "They used junk science. They attempted to overwhelm the lack of evidence with character assassination. They did not have evidence of a homicide." THIS IS INCORRECT! THEY DON'T NEED EVIDENCE OF A HOMOCIDE! THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ALREADY RULED HOMOCIDE THIS IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PROSECUTION!! |
Quote:
That's how I'd interpret it, but I hope I never have to do so in a courtroom. |
HLN had Marcia Clark the OJ prosecutor on earlier and she said something about jurors having to wait 90 days before they can get paid for their stories. It would be nice to think that in 90 days no one would want their story but sadly they will and they will get rich off poor Caylee. She also mentioned that a juror knows they will get more if the verdict is sensational so if they are motivated by money they can try and hold out or convince the others. She said she was not referring to this case but it can happen. |
I'm not sure if this has been talked about here, but I have seen something on the Detroit news a couple times. One of our medical examiners (among the best in the world) was called down to testify. He said the person doing the autopsy never opened the skull, so it was done incorrectly (so something could have been missed). What's up with that? Why would they not do that? |
I think his name is Dr. Spitz. He said even though the skull was skeletonized it should have been opened. Dr. G., ME in Florida, thought was not necessary in skeletonized skull. Prosecution brought in forensic anthropologist who said no need to open, look up through foramen magnum. |
Quote:
It was just another FOOLISH attempt by the defense to confuse the jury...and hey, it worked. Just wanted to add...they do not want to cut the top of the skull off (if they don't need to) because it can cause damage to the skull, especially when it is a child as the bone is more fragile. That is exactly what happened...he cut the top off of Caylee's skull and caused a fracture that wasn't there before. |
Quote:
|
As I understand it the forensic wash that they did inside the skull is for more able to soak into the bone and leech out tissue than any eyes-on exam they could do by opening the top and looking. I think forensic anthropologists - those that deal with old bones rather than the exam the medical examiner does, use the wash technique more than anything. The put the solution into the cavity, let it set, remove and and analyze all the bits of things that soaked loose and became part of the solution. That is a technique routinely used to study many things - put them into solution, separate them by tissue type, if any, etc. I'm describing it badly since I'm no scientist but I think the technique they use in the case is the current peer reviewed technique for anthropologists. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And statistics show that more caucasian prisoners are put to death than African American or Hispanic . 82% of the murder victims in death penalty cases are white, 13% are black,* a 6:1 ratio (NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), 1996). Interestingly, whites represent 56% of those executed, and blacks 38% (NAACP LDF, Summer 1996) when blacks have committed 47% of all murders, and whites 38%. Whites are executed at rates nearly 50% above their involvement in murder, blacks are executed at rates 20% below their involvement in murder. From 1991-94, 34% of murderers have been white, 54% black (Special run 1980-94 BJS data, 1/13/97 Women represent 1% of all executions, however women prison populations are nowhere near as high as men's. There is 1 womens prison to every 5 men's. Ratio of men to women on death row? 68:1. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't know where she will live. I hope it's nowhere close to me!! I am not a nice neighbor. |
oops - quoted wrong post above. Sorry. |
I'm sorry, but your information is outdated. The sources show that they are from 1997. These are more current: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf What you need to understand is that the people are more likely to be put on death row for murdering a white person versus a non-white. That is the crucial information your are missing: Over 75% of the murder victims in cases resulting in an execution were white, even though nationally only 50% of murder victims generally are white. A study in California found that those who killed whites were over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks and over 4 times more likely than those who killed Latinos. (Pierce & Radelet, Santa Clara Law Review 2005) Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2003 - 2018 YorkieTalk.com
Privacy Policy - Terms of Use